BOI Grand Jury

In light of many recent premature and unwarranted Bad Guy posts on the BOI, perhaps a Grand Jury like system in where a committee of appointed individuals privately pre-screens the complaint to determine if it merits elevation to the public forum. This committee would not judge or deliberate, just deem it legitimate to proceed. Its standards can be extremely lenient so as to not refuse even the most minor of wrongs, however it would still have enough teeth to prevent obvious nonsense from becoming a public black eye for the recipient. It would also force a built in cool-down period, which we have seen resolves many issues and non-issues. This idea obviously can be altered or modified to fit the needs of the site, but I think something along these lines would alleviate much of the problems posed here lately.

Originally Posted by bwt501

In light of many recent premature and unwarranted Bad Guy posts on the BOI, perhaps a Grand Jury like system in where a committee of appointed individuals privately pre-screens the complaint to determine if it merits elevation to the public forum. This committee would not judge or deliberate, just deem it legitimate to proceed. Its standards can be extremely lenient so as to not refuse even the most minor of wrongs, however it would still have enough teeth to prevent obvious nonsense from becoming a public black eye for the recipient. It would also force a built in cool-down period, which we have seen resolves many issues and non-issues. This idea obviously can be altered or modified to fit the needs of the site, but I think something along these lines would alleviate much of the problems posed here lately.

I'm not sure such a group would work here. The way it works now is that anyone can bring their claims/experiences here and readers can judge for themselves.
Many claims have validity, some do not.

Usually spiteful or baseless claims get ferretted out quickly by readers and there is value there, because the community can also choose whether they further trust or would want to do business with the spitemonger.

There are indeed premature claims, where there would be no issue if the parties worked together, but isn't that itself a valuable piece of information for readers? I would not want to do business with someone who cannot even try to work out any differences or problems, whether it be with a buyer or seller.

Deliberate bearers of spiteful tales or lies may find, and justifiably so, that fewer people want to buy or sell from them in the future, which in many cases sort of self polices the process since readers are apt to be merciless with someone who lies just to step on another's good reputation.

In addition, the appointed individuals and the appointer would come under fire as, inevitably, the group moves to another site to air their grievance and cast aspersions on any no bill. There would be charges of favoritism, crony capitalism, and all manner of insults hurled by either side at the committee's members and one side or the other would then loudly disagree with the committee's decision.

Point taken. Then perhaps the"Bad Guy" title and red-X can be voted on. The complaint can be presented as usual but the title would have to be approved. I think this is the biggest gripe, the permanent stigma even though the thread played out in the recipients favor.

Originally Posted by bwt501

Point taken. Then perhaps the"Bad Guy" title and red-X can be voted on. The complaint can be presented as usual but the title would have to be approved. I think this is the biggest gripe, the permanent stigma even though the thread played out in the recipients favor.

Voted on by who? Does that mean the party with the most friends (voters) wins? If the voters are an appointed panel, you have the same problems as the committee idea, above.
I see your point, and I empathize, but the current system although not perfect, works. I think many who use the threads to decide whether to do business with a certain individual do read the thread through, I certainly would.

It would be a great idea if we weren't working with kids and crazies (not that all kids are bad, some are more mature than the adults). By, as Lucille said, sometimes a totally baseless claim by the OP tells us not to deal with him/her, as well as proving that the 'accused' will go over and above to make thing rights in the event of an honest mistake.

Noelle

Honestly? I think unproductive posting in the BOI is a bigger issue. But this thread isn't about you.

That's hilarious! You have some karma coming your way sir.
Thanks for the 's.

I dont think a committee to decide what gets on the BOI is a good idea. The whole ideal BOI is that anyone regardless of status in the hobby can bring a complaint to the BOI. If it's meritless or ridiculous, it shows the hobby about the OP. If it's a legitimate complaint, it informs the hobby about the 'bad guy'.

A committee would either have to approve every BOI post to go through, or it becomes a popularity contest where anything not sent through is brought up as a "you're just friends with them!" complaint. Also, that would be judging, as in judging what is worthy of a bad guy red flag or not.

Popularity contests have little to do with reality or justice at times. The BOI is normally all about proof, and without any proof, or with a petty complaint, the OP is usually shown as a bad guy themselves.

Originally Posted by Focal X

Honestly? I think unproductive posting in the BOI is a bigger issue. But this thread isn't about you.

Ive been told its disruptive, not unproductive, and nontheless you've been a fan in the past.

Just caught your edit. Extra for you!